Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Why is porting numbers such an issue?

Last response: in Networking
Share
Anonymous
December 19, 2004 2:25:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Hi,

I am considering signing up with a voip service but if I do so, I would
like to port my current land line number. I have a friend who attempted
to do this through Vonage. When He signed up, he was given a temp
number"just until his original number was transfered." Well to make a
long story short after two months, and numerous calls both to SBC and
Vonage, he got tired of waiting. He bit the bullet, disconnected his
land line and just gave out his "temp" vonage number as his primary
phone. I don't know if this sort of thing is common. Does it have
anything to do with SBC dragging their feet and not wanting to
relinquish numbers, or should I stop being so cynical?


I called BroadVoice the other day. Their unlimited world plan sounded
like a great deal. I was already to fill out the number porting form
which is prominently displayed on their page but was confused because at
the same time, the page stated that the ability to port numbers was not
yet available. I called BroadVoice. The guy I spoke with confirmed
that they are not yet able to port numbers. He said that they are
hoping to be able to start doing so some time in the first quarter of
next year (Translation, they are hoping to start but they have no idea
when it will happen).

So all indications I have had so far is that this whole process is one
big hassle. What's the deal?

--Al

More about : porting numbers issue

Anonymous
December 19, 2004 3:32:07 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <MPG.1c2ecccfa799612b9896a8@news.giganews.com>, Al Puzzuoli
<alpuzz@comcast.net> writes:

>Hi,
>
>I am considering signing up with a voip service but if I do so, I would
>like to port my current land line number. I have a friend who attempted
>to do this through Vonage. When He signed up, he was given a temp
>number"just until his original number was transfered." Well to make a
>long story short after two months, and numerous calls both to SBC and
>Vonage, he got tired of waiting. He bit the bullet, disconnected his
>land line and just gave out his "temp" vonage number as his primary
>phone. I don't know if this sort of thing is common. Does it have
>anything to do with SBC dragging their feet and not wanting to
>relinquish numbers, or should I stop being so cynical?

I'm in the process. I don't think you can really blame the newcomers when the
RBOCs are fighting them every inch of the way. If my LNP gets rejected from
Comcast, I will probably select a number near one of my relatives. You can
have your number (and virtual numbers) anywhere you want.

If you do join Vonage, by your own device at a local store and retail activate
it. There is a $50 rebate, no shipping, and no activation fees. Plus, google
for coupons when you join to get a referral credit of a free month. If you
don't like it, return it to the store. If you do, there are no fees unless you
cancel, then you still have to return the device to Vonage or you are charged
$39.99. My first bill is:

Phone Number                                  1     $0.00     $0.00
Activation Fee                                1     $0.00     $0.00
Residential Basic 500 Plan                    1    $14.99    $14.99
                               -------------------------------------
                                      FET Tax:                $0.45
                                      Regulatory Recovery Fee:$1.50
                                      Shipping:               $0.00
                                      Total:                 $16.94


>I called BroadVoice the other day. Their unlimited world plan sounded
>like a great deal. I was already to fill out the number porting form
>which is prominently displayed on their page but was confused because at
>the same time, the page stated that the ability to port numbers was not
>yet available. I called BroadVoice. The guy I spoke with confirmed
>that they are not yet able to port numbers. He said that they are
>hoping to be able to start doing so some time in the first quarter of
>next year (Translation, they are hoping to start but they have no idea
>when it will happen).

Google Broadvoice. Same story for at least six months now. That is the only
reason I left them after 6 weeks. Otherwise, if LNP is not important to you,
they are a great deal. I was signed up on their BYOD plan (Sipura 1000) for
$5.95/mo+. Once I saw they weren't porting my number, which is why I initially
joined them, I figured I might as well just by prepaid minutes with my ATA for
LD calls. I found a place that sells them for $3.00 paypal at .012/min, no
other fees, perfect quality. www.mutualphone.com

>So all indications I have had so far is that this whole process is one
>big hassle. What's the deal?

Here is my confirmation email. What IS good about Vonage is that you are kept
informed of the LNP progress in your control panel.

Updated Date: Number Transfer Progress History:

December 15, 2004 Awaiting Letter of Authorization
December 15, 2004 Letter of Authorization (LOA) Received
December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier
December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier

------------------------------------------
Thank you for placing your order with Vonage.  
 
**PLEASE NOTE**: You have directed Vonage to assign your
existing phone number to Vonage service. Before we can
assign your number, your former telephone carrier must first process
your request. Once your former carrier releases this number,
Vonage assigns it to you immediately.

**IMPORTANT**: In order to begin the Number Transfer Process,
Vonage must receive your Letter of Authorization (LOA)
form as well as a recent copy of your local phone bill.
 
In the interim, Vonage provides you with a courtesy
temporary virtual number. This number is labeled (VIRTUAL) in the
paragraph below. Please feel free to use this number until your
carrier releases your existing number. Please note that transferring
your number can take at least 15 - 20 business days upon receipt of
complete and correct paperwork. Vonage will keep you informed of the
transfer process via email along the way.
 
Your new Vonage Telephone Numbers,
Voicemail Access Numbers and temporary Voicemail PINs are:
Phone Number                 Voicemail Access Number  PIN
1-xxx-xxxx
1-(VIRTUAL)

You can set up your voicemail at any time by calling your Voicemail Access
Number and following the instructions.

Your 11-Digit Vonage phone number is your mailbox number.

For your protection, please change your Voicemail PIN as
soon as possible.

Please take a few minutes to review the details of your order.
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 5:07:14 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Remember Slamming?

You had AT&T for long distance, then you start getting LD bills from JoeBlow
Telecom. You were slammed.

The same safeguards that prevent that from happening today, and also placed
on LNP.

You have to keep in mind that the L in LNP means local. You can have your
number (and virtual numbers) anywhere you want IS NOT true. Try moving POTS
from one LATA to another, and you will be denied. New York number in
California without VoIP, I do not think so.

But what it really looks like there are two factors involved. Just one or
both will make it tough on Vonage.
1. Vonage does not have their act together. Moving numbers (LNP) can be
automated. Sounds like they are doing it manually and hitting all the red
tape that the RBOCs have in place.
2. Vonage does not have a physical network in the SBC footprint. Makes
routing numbers to the right location tricky.

Brian LaVallee

"pleonard" <pleonard@pobox.moc> wrote in message
news:6l3as0dchnoitpio3u2s97j7qkiv4tukr2@4ax.com...
> In article ID <MPG.1c2ecccfa799612b9896a8@news.giganews.com>, Al Puzzuoli
> <alpuzz@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>Hi,
>>
>>I am considering signing up with a voip service but if I do so, I would
>>like to port my current land line number. I have a friend who attempted
>>to do this through Vonage. When He signed up, he was given a temp
>>number"just until his original number was transfered." Well to make a
>>long story short after two months, and numerous calls both to SBC and
>>Vonage, he got tired of waiting. He bit the bullet, disconnected his
>>land line and just gave out his "temp" vonage number as his primary
>>phone. I don't know if this sort of thing is common. Does it have
>>anything to do with SBC dragging their feet and not wanting to
>>relinquish numbers, or should I stop being so cynical?
>
> I'm in the process. I don't think you can really blame the newcomers when
> the
> RBOCs are fighting them every inch of the way. If my LNP gets rejected
> from
> Comcast, I will probably select a number near one of my relatives. You can
> have your number (and virtual numbers) anywhere you want.
>
> If you do join Vonage, by your own device at a local store and retail
> activate
> it. There is a $50 rebate, no shipping, and no activation fees. Plus,
> google
> for coupons when you join to get a referral credit of a free month. If you
> don't like it, return it to the store. If you do, there are no fees unless
> you
> cancel, then you still have to return the device to Vonage or you are
> charged
> $39.99. My first bill is:
>
> Phone Number 1 $0.00 $0.00
> Activation Fee 1 $0.00 $0.00
> Residential Basic 500 Plan 1 $14.99 $14.99
> -------------------------------------
> FET Tax: $0.45
> Regulatory Recovery Fee:$1.50
> Shipping: $0.00
> Total: $16.94
>
>
>>I called BroadVoice the other day. Their unlimited world plan sounded
>>like a great deal. I was already to fill out the number porting form
>>which is prominently displayed on their page but was confused because at
>>the same time, the page stated that the ability to port numbers was not
>>yet available. I called BroadVoice. The guy I spoke with confirmed
>>that they are not yet able to port numbers. He said that they are
>>hoping to be able to start doing so some time in the first quarter of
>>next year (Translation, they are hoping to start but they have no idea
>>when it will happen).
>
> Google Broadvoice. Same story for at least six months now. That is the
> only
> reason I left them after 6 weeks. Otherwise, if LNP is not important to
> you,
> they are a great deal. I was signed up on their BYOD plan (Sipura 1000)
> for
> $5.95/mo+. Once I saw they weren't porting my number, which is why I
> initially
> joined them, I figured I might as well just by prepaid minutes with my ATA
> for
> LD calls. I found a place that sells them for $3.00 paypal at .012/min, no
> other fees, perfect quality. www.mutualphone.com
>
>>So all indications I have had so far is that this whole process is one
>>big hassle. What's the deal?
>
> Here is my confirmation email. What IS good about Vonage is that you are
> kept
> informed of the LNP progress in your control panel.
>
> Updated Date: Number Transfer Progress History:
>
> December 15, 2004 Awaiting Letter of Authorization
> December 15, 2004 Letter of Authorization (LOA) Received
> December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier
> December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier
>
> ------------------------------------------
> Thank you for placing your order with Vonage.
>
> **PLEASE NOTE**: You have directed Vonage to assign your
> existing phone number to Vonage service. Before we can
> assign your number, your former telephone carrier must first process
> your request. Once your former carrier releases this number,
> Vonage assigns it to you immediately.
>
> **IMPORTANT**: In order to begin the Number Transfer Process,
> Vonage must receive your Letter of Authorization (LOA)
> form as well as a recent copy of your local phone bill.
>
> In the interim, Vonage provides you with a courtesy
> temporary virtual number. This number is labeled (VIRTUAL) in the
> paragraph below. Please feel free to use this number until your
> carrier releases your existing number. Please note that transferring
> your number can take at least 15 - 20 business days upon receipt of
> complete and correct paperwork. Vonage will keep you informed of the
> transfer process via email along the way.
>
> Your new Vonage Telephone Numbers,
> Voicemail Access Numbers and temporary Voicemail PINs are:
> Phone Number Voicemail Access Number PIN
> 1-xxx-xxxx
> 1-(VIRTUAL)
>
> You can set up your voicemail at any time by calling your Voicemail Access
> Number and following the instructions.
>
> Your 11-Digit Vonage phone number is your mailbox number.
>
> For your protection, please change your Voicemail PIN as
> soon as possible.
>
> Please take a few minutes to review the details of your order.
Related resources
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 7:43:00 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message <d_adnZzEds94zEncRVn-og@broadviewnet.net> "Brian LaVallee"
<poing@REMOVE-NO_SPAM-THIS.comcast.net> wrote:

>You had AT&T for long distance, then you start getting LD bills from JoeBlow
>Telecom. You were slammed.

I always considered that a good thing -- Free long distance until they
reverse it (And contrary to their claims, they CAN take their service
off your phone line again. You'll likely revert to the default LD
carrier though, not your previous choice)

I have no business relationship with JoeBlow Telecom, and have not
authorized them to transfer my LD service, so I wouldn't pay JoeBlow nor
acknowledge their existence in any way unless they took it to small
claims court.

In these parts, anyway, small claims courts took a dim view of slamming
-- However, if you pay a penny to JoeBlow, it solidifies the business
relationship and you'll probably be on the hook for the entire bill.

The is the same principle as when a company mails a product to you
without you having previously requested it. You are under no obligation
to pay for the product, nor to return it. If they delivered it
personally rather then shipped it via mail or a courier, you can
actually go after them for disposal fees to cover your time and
expresses taking their product to the dump to dispose of it.


--
They'll say, 'You can't joke about rape. Rape's not funny.'
I can prove to you that rape is funny. Picture Porky Pig raping Elmer Fudd.
See? Hey, why do you think they call him Porky?
-- George Carlin
Anonymous
December 30, 2004 9:07:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <d_adnZzEds94zEncRVn-og@broadviewnet.net>, "Brian LaVallee"
<poing@REMOVE-NO_SPAM-THIS.comcast.net> writes:

>But what it really looks like there are two factors involved. Just one or
>both will make it tough on Vonage.
>1. Vonage does not have their act together. Moving numbers (LNP) can be
>automated. Sounds like they are doing it manually and hitting all the red
>tape that the RBOCs have in place.
>2. Vonage does not have a physical network in the SBC footprint. Makes
>routing numbers to the right location tricky.

>>>So all indications I have had so far is that this whole process is one
>>>big hassle. What's the deal?
>>
>> Here is my confirmation email. What IS good about Vonage is that you are
>> kept
>> informed of the LNP progress in your control panel.
>>
>> Updated Date: Number Transfer Progress History:
>>
>> December 15, 2004 Awaiting Letter of Authorization
>> December 15, 2004 Letter of Authorization (LOA) Received
>> December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier
>> December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier

Vonage's LNP went fine for me from Comcast Digital Phone. Now I'm thinking I'm
very fortunate based on what you are saying. <g>

December 15, 2004 Awaiting Letter of Authorization
December 15, 2004 Letter of Authorization (LOA) Received
December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier
December 15, 2004 Transfer Sent to Carrier
December 23, 2004 Carrier Approved Transfer
December 27, 2004 Completed LNP Transfer
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 3:07:46 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Al Puzzuoli wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am considering signing up with a voip service but if I do so, I
> would like to port my current land line number. I have a friend
> who attempted to do this through Vonage. When He signed up, he was
> given a temp number"just until his original number was transfered."
> Well to make a long story short after two months, and numerous
> calls both to SBC and Vonage, he got tired of waiting. He bit the
> bullet, disconnected his land line and just gave out his "temp"
> vonage number as his primary phone. I don't know if this sort of
> thing is common. Does it have anything to do with SBC dragging
> their feet and not wanting to relinquish numbers, or should I stop
> being so cynical?

I'm just wondering if it's a good idea to do this, what if you want to go
back the other way with your number one day..? After all you will still
need a landline to get your VoIP service over anyway, so what number does
that get when you've transferred its number to VoIP..?

I prefer a totally separate (and new) number, I can then give it to those
I don't particularly trust with my private home number. It's less likely
to cause problems if the VoIP system goes off for any reason, don't forget
it is still a relatively new technology and not 100% reliable, so is it
wise to depend completely on it for your phone service..?

Ivor
December 31, 2004 3:07:47 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr258m$i7n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>I'm just wondering if it's a good idea to do this, what if you want to go
>back the other way with your number one day..? After all you will still
>need a landline to get your VoIP service over anyway, so what number does
>that get when you've transferred its number to VoIP..?
>
>I prefer a totally separate (and new) number, I can then give it to those
>I don't particularly trust with my private home number. It's less likely
>to cause problems if the VoIP system goes off for any reason, don't forget
>it is still a relatively new technology and not 100% reliable, so is it
>wise to depend completely on it for your phone service..?

I will depend on my cell phone. Personally, I believe everyone will use their
cell phone only and dump POTS. The youngest generation of adults are going
cell only, from what I can see. The only reason for me to port my home number
to a voip provider is to keep the number I've had for a few years. If I have
to lose that, I will just eliminate my landline and go cell only for incoming
calls. Then I will use a pay-as-you voip for outbound service for LD.
Currently, I use www.mutualphone.com for .012/min. calls.

From what I've read, WRT porting your number back to POTS, it is actually very
easy "IF" the number originated with your local telephone company. They're
still partially in control of your number, including the CID database.

OTOH, if you try to port out a number generated by the voip provider, it won't
happen. So, the key to keeping your POTS phone number is to never cancel it,
just port it to your new provider. Further, I've read that porting your number
BACK to POTS is extremely easy, since they already control the number and they
want to get back your business ASAP.
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:47:02 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> In article ID <cr258m$i7n$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
> <this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

[snip]

>> I prefer a totally separate (and new) number, I can then give it
>> to those I don't particularly trust with my private home number.
>> It's less likely to cause problems if the VoIP system goes off for
>> any reason, don't forget it is still a relatively new technology
>> and not 100% reliable, so is it wise to depend completely on it
>> for your phone service..?
>
> I will depend on my cell phone. Personally, I believe everyone will
> use their cell phone only and dump POTS. The youngest generation of
> adults are going cell only, from what I can see. The only reason
> for me to port my home number to a voip provider is to keep the
> number I've had for a few years. If I have to lose that, I will
> just eliminate my landline and go cell only for incoming calls.
> Then I will use a pay-as-you voip for outbound service for LD.
> Currently, I use www.mutualphone.com for .012/min. calls.

So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to get VoIP
without a line of some description coming into the house, be it twisted
pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep the landline you already
have and use VoIP as a second line.

I actually use my cellular phone for 90% of my outgoing calls anyway, as I
have a good deal for inclusive minutes. But I wouldn't want to rely 100%
on it though, in case of an emergency it may not be working.

Ivor
Anonymous
December 31, 2004 2:47:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:

>So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
>eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to get VoIP
>without a line of some description coming into the house, be it twisted
>pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep the landline you already
>have and use VoIP as a second line.

Cable is one option, wireless is another, DSL is a third. None of these
three technically require dialtone on the phone line, although depending
on your telco they may have additional requirements.


--
Warning Dates in Calendar are closer than they appear.
December 31, 2004 3:08:36 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>
>So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
>eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to get VoIP
>without a line of some description coming into the house, be it twisted
>pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep the landline you already
>have and use VoIP as a second line.

Cable, router and an Analog Telephone Adapter.

>I actually use my cellular phone for 90% of my outgoing calls anyway, as I
>have a good deal for inclusive minutes. But I wouldn't want to rely 100%
>on it though, in case of an emergency it may not be working.

It goes to voice mail. Same as if your VOIP goes down.
December 31, 2004 3:46:43 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
>eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to get VoIP
>without a line of some description coming into the house, be it twisted
>pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep the landline you already
>have and use VoIP as a second line.

Re-reading your post and mine, I think I might need to clarify something here.

I had Comcast (formerly attbi) CableTV/Internet/Digital Phone service. These
three services all run off of the same cable. I was issued a POTS number and I
received a local number from attbi (AT&T Broadband Internet). I still have
Comcast CableTV/Internet, but I have disconnected their Digital Phone Service
from the same cable.

Recently, I sent in an LOA (Letter Of Authorization) request to Vonage to port
(LNP Local Number Portability) my local POTS number over from Comcast, thereby
retaining my current phone number. Vonage is a VOIP (Voice Over Internet
Protocol) provider and their service relies on any Internet connection,
anywhere in the world. This allows me to retain my local phone number for
incoming calls, where ever I am in the world with my device. Vonage has a
relationship with a couple of telephone companies to allow me to connect to
regular POTS lines.
-------------------------------------------Quote-------------------------
http://www.vonage-forum.com/ftopic813.html

I'm in the VoIP business.

Your INBOUND calls are received near where you're number is "physically"
located and is terminated on numbers owned by (for the moment) one of two
CLECS (Focal and Paetec). However, Focal and Paetec are only used for INBOUND
calls, no outbound calls come back through these gateways. How much Vonage
pays these CLEC's is private data.

From there the call jumps onto a Level3 IP Networks and seeks your little ATA
out.

All OUTBOUND calls (whether local or long distance) are immediately "dumped"
to a termination partner. Most calls I've monitored are being sent to Global
Crossing. However, Vonage probably has numerous SIP Termination partners and
it's proxy server/call switch can send your call.

The irony to this is the Vonage quickly gets your OUTBOUND calls onto the good
ole PSTN almost immediately. Why? Cause LD termination is cheap! No need to
have IP to get cheap.
----------------------------------------End Quote--------------------------

You do not need ANY incoming phone service to call outbound on VOIP. In fact,
most of the very inexpensive services you see on the Internet are for outgoing
only. Mutual phone, SIPphone, FWD, etc. are examples. There ARE ways to
forward incoming calls to these services by getting a free POTS line in
another state, like at http://www.ipkall.com/

So, in the event that I could not have kept my local phone number for some
reason, I would have just eliminated any incoming service. What I'm saying is,
and it makes sense, that any service that includes unlimited incoming service
incurs a monthly charge, while an outgoing plan can be pay-as-you-go.

I own my own ATA (Analog Telephone Adapter) which let's me add as many minutes
as I want, just like a pre-paid telephone card. That is a "backup" to my cell
phone for outgoing. The Vonage device I also have, is locked to Vonage's
service only.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:29:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
> <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
>> eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to
>> get VoIP without a line of some description coming into the house,
>> be it twisted pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep
>> the landline you already have and use VoIP as a second line.
>
> Cable is one option, wireless is another, DSL is a third. None of
> these three technically require dialtone on the phone line,
> although depending on your telco they may have additional
> requirements.

Depends on where you live. Here in the UK you require a POTS line to get
ADSL, whether you use it or not. Cable broadband is technically available
without any other services but is very hard to get. By wireless I assume
you mean 2-way satellite..? Very expensive and very slow, not viable for a
single user.

Here, at any rate, it's not yet viable to do away with an ordinary
landline in favour of VoIP. Maybe one day, but not yet.

Ivor
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:29:21 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message <cr4udi$ljg$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:

>DevilsPGD wrote:
>> In message <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
>> <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:
>>
>>> So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
>>> eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to
>>> get VoIP without a line of some description coming into the house,
>>> be it twisted pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep
>>> the landline you already have and use VoIP as a second line.
>>
>> Cable is one option, wireless is another, DSL is a third. None of
>> these three technically require dialtone on the phone line,
>> although depending on your telco they may have additional
>> requirements.
>
>Depends on where you live. Here in the UK you require a POTS line to get
>ADSL, whether you use it or not.

That's an administrative decision by your telco and/or the regulatory
body, not a technical limitation.

>Cable broadband is technically available
>without any other services but is very hard to get.

A phone call to the cable company isn't sufficient to order the service?

>By wireless I assume
>you mean 2-way satellite..? Very expensive and very slow, not viable for a
>single user.

I wouldn't recommend satellite, the latency is too high for typical VoIP
usage. It might work, but the latency would be too annoying for average
phone calls.

However, you could go wireless (if there are any carriers in the area).
There are a number of wireless technologies, anything from GRPS to
point-to-point microwave to RF are all valid options for wireless
communication over a distance.

>Here, at any rate, it's not yet viable to do away with an ordinary
>landline in favour of VoIP. Maybe one day, but not yet.

Perhaps not where you live, but it's very practical here.

--
Some people are like Slinkies... You can't help but
smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:32:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> In article ID <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
> <this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:
>
>>
>> So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You just
>> eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a way to
>> get VoIP without a line of some description coming into the house,
>> be it twisted pair or cable. Given this, you might as well keep
>> the landline you already have and use VoIP as a second line.
>
> Cable, router and an Analog Telephone Adapter.

Cable. Which comes in 99% of cases with an analogue phone line included.

>> I actually use my cellular phone for 90% of my outgoing calls
>> anyway, as I have a good deal for inclusive minutes. But I
>> wouldn't want to rely 100% on it though, in case of an emergency
>> it may not be working.
>
> It goes to voice mail. Same as if your VOIP goes down.

Not all VoIP providers (yet) have automatic voicemail. But you haven't
answered my question - what do you use for an emergency outgoing call..?
Your cellular battery has just gone flat and the local BTS is down anyway.

Ivor
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 4:32:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message <cr4ujo$qi8$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:

>>> I actually use my cellular phone for 90% of my outgoing calls
>>> anyway, as I have a good deal for inclusive minutes. But I
>>> wouldn't want to rely 100% on it though, in case of an emergency
>>> it may not be working.
>>
>> It goes to voice mail. Same as if your VOIP goes down.
>
>Not all VoIP providers (yet) have automatic voicemail.

True, but many/most do. Implementing voicemail is extremely simple,
it's mainly just a matter of the storage space required.

>But you haven't
>answered my question - what do you use for an emergency outgoing call..?

Cell phone.

>Your cellular battery has just gone flat and the local BTS is down anyway.

If your need for emergency services access isn't sufficient motivation
to keep your phone charged you can buy a backup battery which you leave
on a charger at all times -- This will ensure that you always have the
capability to make an emergency call if needed.

--
Some people are like Slinkies... You can't help but
smile when you see one tumble down the stairs.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:18:03 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

DevilsPGD wrote:
> In message <cr4udi$ljg$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
> <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> DevilsPGD wrote:
>>> In message <cr3e7o$fo7$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
>>> <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So how are you going to get VoIP with no line coming in..? You
>>>> just eliminated your landline, remember..?! I don't know of a
>>>> way to get VoIP without a line of some description coming into
>>>> the house, be it twisted pair or cable. Given this, you might as
>>>> well keep the landline you already have and use VoIP as a second
>>>> line.
>>>
>>> Cable is one option, wireless is another, DSL is a third. None of
>>> these three technically require dialtone on the phone line,
>>> although depending on your telco they may have additional
>>> requirements.
>>
>> Depends on where you live. Here in the UK you require a POTS line
>> to get ADSL, whether you use it or not.
>
> That's an administrative decision by your telco and/or the
> regulatory body, not a technical limitation.

But still the case, so largely irrelevant.

>> Cable broadband is technically available
>> without any other services but is very hard to get.
>
> A phone call to the cable company isn't sufficient to order the
> service?

Rarely. It isn't advertised as an available option. You *can* have it, but
it's very hard to persuade them to sell it to you, they want you to have
phone and TV as well..!

>> By wireless I assume
>> you mean 2-way satellite..? Very expensive and very slow, not
>> viable for a single user.
>
> I wouldn't recommend satellite, the latency is too high for typical
> VoIP usage. It might work, but the latency would be too annoying
> for average phone calls.
>
> However, you could go wireless (if there are any carriers in the
> area). There are a number of wireless technologies, anything from
> GRPS to point-to-point microwave to RF are all valid options for
> wireless communication over a distance.

Not available for individual users. Not here, anyway.
>
>> Here, at any rate, it's not yet viable to do away with an ordinary
>> landline in favour of VoIP. Maybe one day, but not yet.
>
> Perhaps not where you live, but it's very practical here.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to practicalities. If nobody
provides the service, you don't get it..!

Personally, I's still be very reluctant to do away with a traditional POTS
line, even if I do only keep it for emergencies.

Ivor
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 12:22:38 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

DevilsPGD wrote:

[snip]

> Cell phone.
>
>> Your cellular battery has just gone flat and the local BTS is down
>> anyway.
>
> If your need for emergency services access isn't sufficient
> motivation to keep your phone charged you can buy a backup battery
> which you leave on a charger at all times -- This will ensure that
> you always have the capability to make an emergency call if needed.

You missed the part about your local base not being on air. You have no
signal. You live in an area where there is no coverage. You have no
signal. It's midnight on New Year's Eve and all the cells are clogged with
idiots singing to each other. You have no signal.

Get the picture..? Cellular *may* not work, then what do you do when your
78 year old mother is lying on the floor in need of an ambulance..?

Ivor
January 1, 2005 2:54:10 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr4ujo$qi8$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>Not all VoIP providers (yet) have automatic voicemail. But you haven't
>answered my question - what do you use for an emergency outgoing call..?
>Your cellular battery has just gone flat and the local BTS is down anyway.

Plug my cell in to my car for a battery source?
January 1, 2005 2:57:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr5q51$94o$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>You missed the part about your local base not being on air. You have no
>signal. You live in an area where there is no coverage. You have no
>signal. It's midnight on New Year's Eve and all the cells are clogged with
>idiots singing to each other. You have no signal.
>
>Get the picture..? Cellular *may* not work, then what do you do when your
>78 year old mother is lying on the floor in need of an ambulance..?

Or your POTS line gets cut. What to do then?
January 1, 2005 3:08:49 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr5q51$94o$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>>local BTS is down anyway.

>You missed the part about your local base not being on air.

I too missed that part as you can see. I wasn't familiar with BTS. Now looking
it up "The name for the antenna and radio equipment necessary to provide
wireless service in an area. Also called a base station or cell site."

The odds of BOTH my cable being down AND my cell phone being down at the same
time would be truly unbelievable since neither of them has been down for any
period of time in the last 5 years I've lived in my current residence.

But we do have a form of POTS here in the States called Lifeline which is also
an option.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:08:16 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

p <<>> writes:

>From what I've read, WRT porting your number back to POTS, it is actually very
>easy "IF" the number originated with your local telephone company. They're
>still partially in control of your number, including the CID database.

I have read (sorry, no reference handy) that VoIP companies are not treated the
same as landline and mobile phone providers in this respect. While they can
take your number, they're not required to relinquish it. Seems odd but I can
imagine it...

>OTOH, if you try to port out a number generated by the voip provider, it won't
>happen.

....but maybe that's all it is and what I thought I understood isn't true.

>So, the key to keeping your POTS phone number is to never cancel it,
>just port it to your new provider.

That is almost certainly true. I have read several porting FAQs that instruct
to never cancel your number.

>Further, I've read that porting your number
>BACK to POTS is extremely easy, since they already control the number and they
>want to get back your business ASAP.

As another option, consider "remote call forwarding". You can do it *now*, it
will give you lots of flexibility and there's not a huge cost involved.

RCF is provided by your local telco. From what I understand, it's usually
marketed to businesses who want a telephone presence in a town (a local number)
without having a physical presence there. When you get RCF service you specify
a phone number where calls to some local number will ring. It *only* provides
forwarding.

Not only is the service cheaper than regular phone service but because it's one
way only many of the tariffs, etc. disappear. You'll also save on any special
services you had (CallerID, distinctive ring, ...) because now you'll get them
from your VoIP provider.

By going with RCF, you can choose whatever VoIP provider you want without being
so tied to which one has a local number in your area. This is a big deal for
me because I live in a DID black hole. (I forward my calls to a toll-free
LiveVoIP number.) I also figure it will make switching to another provider
trivial. I would hate to have my number in the hands of a company that goes
under. (Note that toll-free numbers are much easier to port. That's one
reason I'm starting to use them.)

If you're thinking about weaning off of your old number anyway, RCF might be a
quick and painless way to get started and shave quite a bit off your local bill.

--kyler
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:00:46 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message <cr5q51$94o$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:

>> If your need for emergency services access isn't sufficient
>> motivation to keep your phone charged you can buy a backup battery
>> which you leave on a charger at all times -- This will ensure that
>> you always have the capability to make an emergency call if needed.
>
>You missed the part about your local base not being on air. You have no
>signal. You live in an area where there is no coverage. You have no
>signal. It's midnight on New Year's Eve and all the cells are clogged with
>idiots singing to each other. You have no signal.
>
>Get the picture..? Cellular *may* not work, then what do you do when your
>78 year old mother is lying on the floor in need of an ambulance..?

What would you do if the landline service was overloaded and you
couldn't complete any calls? Or the local CO went off line? Or a
backhoe took out all the phone lines in your area?


--
In Jolt We Trust
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:00:48 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message <cr5pse$8v2$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk> "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:

>>> Depends on where you live. Here in the UK you require a POTS line
>>> to get ADSL, whether you use it or not.
>>
>> That's an administrative decision by your telco and/or the
>> regulatory body, not a technical limitation.
>
>But still the case, so largely irrelevant.

Partially true. However, it's worth noting the difference since there
is no point petitioning the telco or a regulatory body to change a
technical limitation. However, since the problem is administrative, it
can be solved either by a regulatory body or the telco.

>>> Cable broadband is technically available
>>> without any other services but is very hard to get.
>>
>> A phone call to the cable company isn't sufficient to order the
>> service?
>
>Rarely. It isn't advertised as an available option. You *can* have it, but
>it's very hard to persuade them to sell it to you, they want you to have
>phone and TV as well..!

Interesting. Around here, if you call sales and tell them exactly what
you want, they may try to upsell but they won't force the issue -- The
cable company would rather sell something then nothing.

>>> Here, at any rate, it's not yet viable to do away with an ordinary
>>> landline in favour of VoIP. Maybe one day, but not yet.
>>
>> Perhaps not where you live, but it's very practical here.
>
>At the end of the day, it all boils down to practicalities. If nobody
>provides the service, you don't get it..!

Then you need to be in touch with the marketing department of the telco
and/or cable company.

>Personally, I's still be very reluctant to do away with a traditional POTS
>line, even if I do only keep it for emergencies.

For me, the cost/benefit ratio isn't worth it. I can walk to a
neighbour's house and use a landline, or I can use my cell. The odds of
both my cell service AND cable service going down at the same time is
fairly low.

The chance of it happening at the same time as everyone in the house
being unable to go to a neighbour's house is effectively zero.

--
In Jolt We Trust
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 10:01:51 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

x> In article ID <cr5q51$94o$1@newsg2.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
> <this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:
>
>> You missed the part about your local base not being on air. You
>> have no signal. You live in an area where there is no coverage.
>> You have no signal. It's midnight on New Year's Eve and all the
>> cells are clogged with idiots singing to each other. You have no
>> signal.
>>
>> Get the picture..? Cellular *may* not work, then what do you do
>> when your 78 year old mother is lying on the floor in need of an
>> ambulance..?
>
> Or your POTS line gets cut. What to do then?

Why would it get cut..? The odds of this happening are somewhat remote,
particularly if the line is underground, rather than on a pole, as it is
here. The odds are greater that the cellular system might be down, which
is why I'd rather rely on POTS in an emergency.

Granted, the chances of POTS, cellular and VoIP *all* going down
simultaneously are somewhat remote, and I admit I was playing devils
advocate a little, but my point is don't rely on something new and/or high
tech in an emergency, the old tried/trusted things like POTS are far more
likely to survive problems. In over 30 years of living in this house, I
can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've lost either
electricity or my POTS line. The local cellular base on the other hand
goes up and down like a yoyo, and VoIP, while reliable for the most part,
has been known to lock up if my router throws a wobbly..!

Happy New Year to all,

Ivor
January 1, 2005 10:01:52 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article ID <cr6s32$4c9$1@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk>, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> writes:

>Granted, the chances of POTS, cellular and VoIP *all* going down
>simultaneously are somewhat remote, and I admit I was playing devils
>advocate a little, but my point is don't rely on something new and/or high
>tech in an emergency, the old tried/trusted things like POTS are far more
>likely to survive problems. In over 30 years of living in this house, I
>can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I've lost either
>electricity or my POTS line. The local cellular base on the other hand
>goes up and down like a yoyo, and VoIP, while reliable for the most part,
>has been known to lock up if my router throws a wobbly..!

Point taken.

>Happy New Year to all,

You too.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:18:50 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:22:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
<this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:

>You missed the part about your local base not being on air. You have no
>signal. You live in an area where there is no coverage. You have no
>signal. It's midnight on New Year's Eve and all the cells are clogged with
>idiots singing to each other. You have no signal.
>
>Get the picture..? Cellular *may* not work, then what do you do when your
>78 year old mother is lying on the floor in need of an ambulance..?


Using the example you chose to cite in all probability you would have
the same success trying to place your call on a land line phone - your
78 year old mother would still be on the floor while you were waiting
for a dial tone on your POTS phone!
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 12:31:25 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

avoidspam@invalid.com wrote:
> On Sat, 1 Jan 2005 09:22:38 -0000, "Ivor Jones"
> <this.address@notvalid.inv> wrote:
>
>> You missed the part about your local base not being on air. You
>> have no signal. You live in an area where there is no coverage.
>> You have no signal. It's midnight on New Year's Eve and all the
>> cells are clogged with idiots singing to each other. You have no
>> signal.
>>
>> Get the picture..? Cellular *may* not work, then what do you do
>> when your 78 year old mother is lying on the floor in need of an
>> ambulance..?
>
>
> Using the example you chose to cite in all probability you would
> have the same success trying to place your call on a land line
> phone - your 78 year old mother would still be on the floor while
> you were waiting for a dial tone on your POTS phone!

See my other post on this. In 30 years at this location my POTS line has
been out of service maybe 3 or 4 times. The local cell, however, goes up
and down like a yoyo.

Ivor
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 7:08:18 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

p <<>> writes:

>The odds of BOTH my cable being down AND my cell phone being down at the same
>time would be truly unbelievable since neither of them has been down for any
>period of time in the last 5 years I've lived in my current residence.

....and I've experienced a dead POTS line of over one day within the past year.

>But we do have a form of POTS here in the States called Lifeline which is also
>an option.

In our area we can make emergency calls using unsubscribed POTS lines. At
least it appears that way for one of my friends who moved into a house and did
not activate the landline.

--kyler
Anonymous
January 10, 2005 9:08:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

It seems somewhat timely that I just heard from a friend of mine who
I'd given an SPA-2000. During the ice storm a few days ago a tree
fell on some cables ripping the them from his house (and pulling
down his power transformer). Another friend provided a generator
and he's been using my VoIP account ever since. (His TV cable was not
affected.)

He said that it's been interesting for his wife to explain that their
phone line has been cut but they can be reached at a toll-free number.

Ah...the joys of VoIP...

--kyler
Anonymous
February 8, 2005 8:35:34 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> I will depend on my cell phone. Personally, I believe everyone will use their
> cell phone only and dump POTS. The youngest generation of adults are going
> cell only, from what I can see. The only reason for me to port my home number

And everyone move to urban area? There are vast swaths of this country
where cell service is marginal or non-existent.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 2:55:20 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

David Ross wrote:
>> I will depend on my cell phone. Personally, I believe everyone
>> will use their cell phone only and dump POTS. The youngest
>> generation of adults are going cell only, from what I can see. The
>> only reason for me to port my home number
>
> And everyone move to urban area? There are vast swaths of this
> country where cell service is marginal or non-existent.

Which country..?

Don't answer that, I know - but this is a global group and not everyone is
in North America.

Ivor
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:08:38 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message of Tue, 8 Feb 2005, David Ross writes
>> I will depend on my cell phone. Personally, I believe everyone will use their
>> cell phone only and dump POTS. The youngest generation of adults are going
>> cell only, from what I can see. The only reason for me to port my home number
>
>And everyone move to urban area? There are vast swaths of this country
>where cell service is marginal or non-existent.
>

Strange! I thought this country had 99% coverage - even in rural areas,
let alone vast swaths of it. :-)

DF
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 11:08:39 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

> Strange! I thought this country had 99% coverage - even in rural areas,
> let alone vast swaths of it. :-)

When I visit relatives in Dallas I always have bars. I can't always get
a signal but I always get bars. It's flat with a high population and so
a reasonable number of towers gets me lots of coverage.

Here in the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area of NC, there are LOTs of
dead spots. Most in the built up areas are small but there are there.
There a neighborhood in Chapel Hill where most of the residents can only
use Alltel. It's dead to the rest of the carriers. And this is not a low
rent district. This area is hilly, and the carriers just don't want to
spend money to cover every low and/or hidden spot.

Pretend to sign up for service in zip 27601 and you'll see we have lots
of open space on all of the carriers' maps.
Anonymous
February 9, 2005 7:50:26 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In article <71GS1iDGUcCCFwmN@127.0.0.1> David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk>
writes:


>Strange! I thought this country had 99% coverage - even in rural areas,
>let alone vast swaths of it. :-)

It's true, 99% of the population has cell coverage, but 70% of them live
in or near metropolitan areas.

Once you depart from the beaten path there still are wide swaths of this
country, out in the dingy-weeds, where there is no cellular coverage. I
personally know of one such location, a mere 45 miles East of the heart of
downtown Houston, TX and just 5 miles North of Interstate 10. Is this a
rural area? Yes, very much so. There's also no Cable TV there nor is there
any wireline DSL. The area is also sparsely populated.
February 10, 2005 1:47:40 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

David Ross skrev:
>> Strange! I thought this country had 99% coverage - even in rural
>> areas, let alone vast swaths of it. :-)
>
>
> When I visit relatives in Dallas I always have bars. I can't always get
> a signal but I always get bars. It's flat with a high population and so
> a reasonable number of towers gets me lots of coverage.
>
> Here in the Raleigh, Durham, Chapel Hill area of NC, there are LOTs of
> dead spots. Most in the built up areas are small but there are there.
> There a neighborhood in Chapel Hill where most of the residents can only
> use Alltel. It's dead to the rest of the carriers. And this is not a low
> rent district. This area is hilly, and the carriers just don't want to
> spend money to cover every low and/or hidden spot.
>
> Pretend to sign up for service in zip 27601 and you'll see we have lots
> of open space on all of the carriers' maps.

Hehe - interesting to read about this. It could have been Scandinavia,
but 15 years ago.... Funny, when we travelled in Eastern Europe 15
years ago, we called THOSE coutries retro! When I called home from
Florida last year, people thought I was joking when I said I hadn't
returned their calls because I had to go into the city to get mobile
connection.

Although we are a bit off-topic here - what is the reason for America's
falling so far behind the rest of the western world when it comes to
cell phones? Lack of standards?

Svein
(Norway)
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 1:47:41 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Svein <svein_hovik29@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Although we are a bit off-topic here - what is the reason for America's
> falling so far behind the rest of the western world when it comes to
> cell phones? Lack of standards?

Because the landline service in the USA is vastly superior to that in
Europe, there's been less of an urgent need to try to cobble together a
substitute in the form of cell service.

miguel
--
Hit The Road! Photos from 35 countries on 5 continents: http://travel.u.nu
Anonymous
February 10, 2005 2:58:19 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

In message of Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Mitel Lurker writes
>In article <71GS1iDGUcCCFwmN@127.0.0.1> David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk>
>writes:
>
>
>>Strange! I thought this country had 99% coverage - even in rural areas,
>>let alone vast swaths of it. :-)
>
>It's true, 99% of the population has cell coverage, but 70% of them live
>in or near metropolitan areas.
>
>Once you depart from the beaten path there still are wide swaths of this
>country, out in the dingy-weeds, where there is no cellular coverage. I
>personally know of one such location, a mere 45 miles East of the heart of
>downtown Houston, TX and just 5 miles North of Interstate 10. Is this a
>rural area? Yes, very much so. There's also no Cable TV there nor is there
>any wireline DSL. The area is also sparsely populated.

You guys just think you're the centre of the world, and every think
revolves around the USA. Get a life - this is a global newsgroup.

DF
Anonymous
February 14, 2005 2:30:41 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

I don't understand your point in context. Are you suggesting that we
not discuss cell coverage in the US because this is a global newsgroup?
If that is not what you're suggesting, then what is your point? I don't
see anything in the quoted text that would warrant such a response.
February 15, 2005 1:02:36 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Thats like me saying that you english people bitch and moan about
everything.


"David Floyd" <david@floyd.org.uk> wrote in message
news:mQRFM$PbOqCCFwHk@127.0.0.1...
> In message of Wed, 9 Feb 2005, Mitel Lurker writes
> >In article <71GS1iDGUcCCFwmN@127.0.0.1> David Floyd <david@floyd.org.uk>
> >writes:
> >
> >
> >>Strange! I thought this country had 99% coverage - even in rural areas,
> >>let alone vast swaths of it. :-)
> >
> >It's true, 99% of the population has cell coverage, but 70% of them live
> >in or near metropolitan areas.
> >
> >Once you depart from the beaten path there still are wide swaths of this
> >country, out in the dingy-weeds, where there is no cellular coverage. I
> >personally know of one such location, a mere 45 miles East of the heart
of
> >downtown Houston, TX and just 5 miles North of Interstate 10. Is this a
> >rural area? Yes, very much so. There's also no Cable TV there nor is
there
> >any wireline DSL. The area is also sparsely populated.
>
> You guys just think you're the centre of the world, and every think
> revolves around the USA. Get a life - this is a global newsgroup.
>
> DF
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:15:28 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Then you must be blind as well as easily irritated. :)  It's obvious
that the thread had migrated to discussing the spotty cell coverage in
the US. Unless, that is, someplace else in the world has locations
named Raleigh, NC or Houston, TX.

Do you consider any mention of the US by an American to be arrogant? Do
Americans need to start placing disclaimers at the beginning of posts
so that those in the UK don't get their panties in a bunch over the
mere mention of sites within the US?

It was more than apparent from the context that the US was being
discussed.
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 5:29:57 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"jneiberger@<google'smailservice>" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108409441.634689.39350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>I don't understand your point in context. Are you suggesting that we
> not discuss cell coverage in the US because this is a global newsgroup?
> If that is not what you're suggesting, then what is your point? I don't
> see anything in the quoted text that would warrant such a response.

That is precisely the problem, there *isn't* anything in the original text
to indicate that the country being discussed was the US. It was assumed
that everyone would know, which I for one find arrogant.

Ivor (in the UK)
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 9:05:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Ivor,

I would agree with you if that had been the only clue. We certainly
can't expect everyone to know the names of all of our telcos here, even
just the big ones. However, several posts mentioned the USA; America;
Houston, TX; Dallas, TX; Chapel Hill, NC; Raleigh, NC. I think one can
reasonably infer that we're discussing the United States at that point.
:-)

Perhaps it's just the way my newsreader chose to present the order of
the posts but they had been plainly discussing the US for several posts
before David Floyd's post.

Oh well, that's Usenet for you. Let's shake hands and move on...
Anonymous
February 15, 2005 10:13:30 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "jneiberger@<google'smailservice>" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1108409441.634689.39350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>I don't understand your point in context. Are you suggesting that we
>>not discuss cell coverage in the US because this is a global newsgroup?
>>If that is not what you're suggesting, then what is your point? I don't
>>see anything in the quoted text that would warrant such a response.
>
>
> That is precisely the problem, there *isn't* anything in the original text
> to indicate that the country being discussed was the US. It was assumed
> that everyone would know, which I for one find arrogant.
>
> Ivor (in the UK)
>
>
>
Oh please. The original post in the thread indicated he had service from
SBC. a few posts further down pacbell is discussed. That meanswe are
discussing the USA. If the thread had started out with someone mentining
he had service from BT, i'd assume we were dicussing the UK.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 4:15:12 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"T. Sean Weintz" <strap@hanh-ct.org> wrote in message
news:111541c491l8p25@news.supernews.com...
> Ivor Jones wrote:
>> "jneiberger@<google'smailservice>" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in
>> message news:1108409441.634689.39350@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>>I don't understand your point in context. Are you suggesting that we
>>>not discuss cell coverage in the US because this is a global newsgroup?
>>>If that is not what you're suggesting, then what is your point? I don't
>>>see anything in the quoted text that would warrant such a response.
>>
>>
>> That is precisely the problem, there *isn't* anything in the original
>> text to indicate that the country being discussed was the US. It was
>> assumed that everyone would know, which I for one find arrogant.
>>
>> Ivor (in the UK)
>>
>>
>>
> Oh please. The original post in the thread indicated he had service from
> SBC. a few posts further down pacbell is discussed. That meanswe are
> discussing the USA. If the thread had started out with someone mentining
> he had service from BT, i'd assume we were dicussing the UK.

This assumes everyone in the world is familiar with the names of every
telco in the world. As it happens I have heard of Pacbell, having spent a
long time in California over the years, but not everyone is so don't
assume, please. I have never heard of SBC for example and I wouldn't
expect a US reader who maybe has never been to the UK to have heard of BT
(who isn't the only UK telco BTW).


Ivor
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 5:36:15 AM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

>>Although we are a bit off-topic here - what is the reason for America's
>>falling so far behind the rest of the western world when it comes to
>>cell phones? Lack of standards?
>
>
> Because the landline service in the USA is vastly superior to that in
> Europe, there's been less of an urgent need to try to cobble together a
> substitute in the form of cell service.
>
Yes. The vastly different tax (read government policy), social, and
development structures make for very different development paths. If
nothing else WWI and WWII had vastly different impacts on the opposite
sides of the Atlantic when it comes to utility and public service type
operations.
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 2:09:31 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

"jneiberger@<google'smailservice>" <jneiberger@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1108519529.085027.80320@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> Ivor,
>
> I would agree with you if that had been the only clue. We certainly
> can't expect everyone to know the names of all of our telcos here, even
> just the big ones. However, several posts mentioned the USA; America;
> Houston, TX; Dallas, TX; Chapel Hill, NC; Raleigh, NC. I think one can
> reasonably infer that we're discussing the United States at that point.
> :-)
>
> Perhaps it's just the way my newsreader chose to present the order of
> the posts but they had been plainly discussing the US for several posts
> before David Floyd's post.

True, but the *original* post in this thread didn't.

> Oh well, that's Usenet for you. Let's shake hands and move on...

Fair enough.

Ivor
Anonymous
February 16, 2005 7:45:29 PM

Archived from groups: comp.dcom.voice-over-ip (More info?)

jneiberger@<google'smailservice> wrote:
> We certainly
> can't expect everyone to know the names of all of our telcos here, even
> just the big ones.

In a VOIP news group I sure as hell WOULD expect that. At least for
folks to know the MAJOR ones in the more common countries. If I see a
company I don't know referred to I Google it. A quick google on SBC
would tell anyone what country was being dealt with.
!